A fantastic editorial that highlights the stupidity of the immigration debate.

The data support Massey"s thesis: In 1980, 46 percent of undocumented Mexican migrants returned to Mexico within 12 months. By 2007, that was down to 7 percent. As a result, the permanent undocumented population exploded.

1. I have always maintained illegal immigration is a economics problem.2. Create low skill labor visa program and instantly there is no jobs for illegal immigrants.3. The militarization of the southern border is crazy expensive and is not proven to reduce terrorism in any way shape or form.4. Once again we have rhetoric and stupidity dominating politics and the polarization of the american public. Thanks Democrats and Republicans.

My (limited) understanding of this specific issue is that illegal immigrants take jobs that pay far below minimum wage, so government sanctioning of a low-skill visa program wouldn't affect that particular aspect of illegal immigration.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 8/9/2013 1:16:07 PM, drafterman wrote:Can someone explain the process for "taking" a job from someone? I've never been clear on how that works.

Immigrants tend to work for less pay. All else being the same, they would undercut the "established" labor force.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 8/9/2013 1:16:07 PM, drafterman wrote:Can someone explain the process for "taking" a job from someone? I've never been clear on how that works.

Immigrants tend to work for less pay. All else being the same, they would undercut the "established" labor force.

The choice of word suggests something that is A) active and B) under the direction of the immigrant. I don't think that this accurately characterizes the situation.

"Working for less" is passive. It is less something I "do" rather than something I'm willing to accept.

Second, you can't "take" a job that isn't being "given." Ergo you can't "take" a job from someone, the employer of that job has to take it and give it to you. I don't think the companies are getting their due credit/blame here. IMO, if anyone is acting unethically, it's them. In fact, you could argue that it's the companies exploiting the fact that illegal immigrants have little choice or recourse and so must accept low salaries or else they'd be destitute (moreso than they already are).

At 8/9/2013 1:16:07 PM, drafterman wrote:Can someone explain the process for "taking" a job from someone? I've never been clear on how that works.

Immigrants tend to work for less pay. All else being the same, they would undercut the "established" labor force.

The choice of word suggests something that is A) active and B) under the direction of the immigrant. I don't think that this accurately characterizes the situation.

"Working for less" is passive. It is less something I "do" rather than something I'm willing to accept.

Correct. I would thus frame the bitching about illegal immigrants taking jobs as passive-aggressiveness.

Second, you can't "take" a job that isn't being "given." Ergo you can't "take" a job from someone, the employer of that job has to take it and give it to you. I don't think the companies are getting their due credit/blame here. IMO, if anyone is acting unethically, it's them. In fact, you could argue that it's the companies exploiting the fact that illegal immigrants have little choice or recourse and so must accept low salaries or else they'd be destitute (moreso than they already are).

Agree.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 8/9/2013 1:16:07 PM, drafterman wrote:Can someone explain the process for "taking" a job from someone? I've never been clear on how that works.

That.

Honestly, the whole idea of taking a job is bullsh1t, unless people literally are firing people and saying "I'm giving your job to an illegal immigrant." And even then, it's not taking a job.

lol, well just to put this in perspective, people rarely say "I was given a job by corporate X". They say "I took that job with Apple."

So, when you talk about immigrants working, you put it in the same context. The worker still has the right of refusal...they aren't obligated to work at a place simply because it has a job available.

To say illegal immigrants take American jobs imply that Americans have the right to those jobs to begin with. Which frankly is obviously crap.

Americans do have a right to American work. What makes you think otherwise? Would you rather be working at Foxconn?

Globalization has kind of muddied this, but this goes back to industries being geolocated, so the fact that a capitalist built a factory in a certain city does mean that those jobs are geo-located in that city...if the city's population didn't have a "right" to those jobs, who did?

It's funny though, in my classes on China a big theme was the "right to work". Here we get offended by that. It's quite interesting.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 8/9/2013 8:14:01 AM, slo1 wrote:A fantastic editorial that highlights the stupidity of the immigration debate.

The data support Massey"s thesis: In 1980, 46 percent of undocumented Mexican migrants returned to Mexico within 12 months. By 2007, that was down to 7 percent. As a result, the permanent undocumented population exploded.

1. I have always maintained illegal immigration is a economics problem.2. Create low skill labor visa program and instantly there is no jobs for illegal immigrants.3. The militarization of the southern border is crazy expensive and is not proven to reduce terrorism in any way shape or form.4. Once again we have rhetoric and stupidity dominating politics and the polarization of the american public. Thanks Democrats and Republicans.

I am only against open immigration policy, or amnesty in welfare states like the USA, Western EU, Canada, etc.

No, someone does not deserve to come over here for a better life at the taxpayers expense. There is a difference between immigrants who came to escape persecution and parasites who come to live off the welfare state.

While we're on the subject, people who live off of welfare or government assistance are by definition parasites,

"Parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between organisms where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."

In this case the taxpayers being the hosts, the parasites are the people receiving means of survival (money) from the taxpayers.

So why is welfare immoral? For the same reason parasitism is, the relationship is non-mutual.

At 8/9/2013 1:16:07 PM, drafterman wrote:Can someone explain the process for "taking" a job from someone? I've never been clear on how that works.

That.

Honestly, the whole idea of taking a job is bullsh1t, unless people literally are firing people and saying "I'm giving your job to an illegal immigrant." And even then, it's not taking a job.

lol, well just to put this in perspective, people rarely say "I was given a job by corporate X". They say "I took that job with Apple."

So, when you talk about immigrants working, you put it in the same context. The worker still has the right of refusal...they aren't obligated to work at a place simply because it has a job available.

To say illegal immigrants take American jobs imply that Americans have the right to those jobs to begin with. Which frankly is obviously crap.

Americans do have a right to American work. What makes you think otherwise? Would you rather be working at Foxconn?

Nobody has the right to a job, period. Not in the sense that it's okay to obstruct someone from seeking a job, but nobody is entitled to be given work. An employer can employ anyone s/he so chooses, they have no obligation to employ anyone (I mean, they obviously are obliged to employ SOMEONE, but I mean they aren't obliged to hire a certain person).

Globalization has kind of muddied this, but this goes back to industries being geolocated, so the fact that a capitalist built a factory in a certain city does mean that those jobs are geo-located in that city...if the city's population didn't have a "right" to those jobs, who did?

Nobody did.

It's funny though, in my classes on China a big theme was the "right to work". Here we get offended by that. It's quite interesting.

It's not about reciprocation, it's just all about me,
a sycophantic, prophetic, Socratic junkie wannabe.
- The 1975, "The Sound"

At 8/9/2013 1:05:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:My (limited) understanding of this specific issue is that illegal immigrants take jobs that pay far below minimum wage, so government sanctioning of a low-skill visa program wouldn't affect that particular aspect of illegal immigration.

If the monies for militarizing the border and increasing the patrol were used for enforcement with businesses coupled with a low skill visa program, it would be more effective.

Check this out. Approx 40% of illegals overstayed their visa. We are going at illegal immigration completely wrong.http://www.breitbart.com...

To say illegal immigrants take American jobs imply that Americans have the right to those jobs to begin with. Which frankly is obviously crap.

Americans do have a right to American work. What makes you think otherwise? Would you rather be working at Foxconn?

Nobody has the right to a job, period. Not in the sense that it's okay to obstruct someone from seeking a job, but nobody is entitled to be given work. An employer can employ anyone s/he so chooses, they have no obligation to employ anyone (I mean, they obviously are obliged to employ SOMEONE, but I mean they aren't obliged to hire a certain person).

Although I know it can easily be validly interpreted otherwise, the "right to work" currently entails the right to better oneself via productive labor. I would tie it closely to "equal opportunity" (for Americans).

I think employers are obliged not to hire illegals. Work has so many aspects of legality to it that it becomes untenable to hire an illegal, someone for which our justice system largely does not apply (how would you handle taxes and insurance, for example). That and of course the blanket provision that it is illegal to hire them anyway.

Globalization has kind of muddied this, but this goes back to industries being geolocated, so the fact that a capitalist built a factory in a certain city does mean that those jobs are geo-located in that city...if the city's population didn't have a "right" to those jobs, who did?

Nobody did.

lol, fair enough. I was thinking the same, either the city's population or no one.

---

@CA:

I agree that illegal immigrants should be denied most relevant government services, but I'm not exactly for eliminating ALL of welfare. You make a good point nonetheless.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 8/9/2013 1:05:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:My (limited) understanding of this specific issue is that illegal immigrants take jobs that pay far below minimum wage, so government sanctioning of a low-skill visa program wouldn't affect that particular aspect of illegal immigration.

If the monies for militarizing the border and increasing the patrol were used for enforcement with businesses coupled with a low skill visa program, it would be more effective.

Check this out. Approx 40% of illegals overstayed their visa. We are going at illegal immigration completely wrong.http://www.breitbart.com...

You bring up a lot of interesting information on this topic, but I really don't know if this problem's solvable. In your last article, it's saying that 40% overstayed an H-1B visa...this is something the US hands out to people that typically have a good amount of post-secondary education. I mean, I suppose giving them low-skilled work would be better than them being illegal, but really, they "shouldn't" be here (for whatever reason) and need to go back home. People who have college degrees also more then likely have the means to go back home, but for whatever reason choose to remain here illegally.

I guess it goes to whether or not you view immigration in general to be problematic. If you don't, then every "deserving" illegal (i.e. not a criminal in their country of origin) should be legal.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

The problem with opening the floodgates on immigration is that you may end up saturating the labor pool, and this is where people start getting upset that immigrants are "taking" jobs that ostensibly "belong" to the "established" labor pool, the underlying argument being that with a gigantic supply of labor, wages get pushed downward...the "established" labor may see it as a form of standard of living regression. This also happens to be the biggest justifiable gripe against globalization, IMHO.

There's also the issue of accepting a bunch of people who have never paid any taxes into our vast entitlement system...if these people don't find work, they're nothing but a drain to the system, especially if they're all magically "legal".

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

To say illegal immigrants take American jobs imply that Americans have the right to those jobs to begin with. Which frankly is obviously crap.

Americans do have a right to American work. What makes you think otherwise? Would you rather be working at Foxconn?

Nobody has the right to a job, period. Not in the sense that it's okay to obstruct someone from seeking a job, but nobody is entitled to be given work. An employer can employ anyone s/he so chooses, they have no obligation to employ anyone (I mean, they obviously are obliged to employ SOMEONE, but I mean they aren't obliged to hire a certain person).

Although I know it can easily be validly interpreted otherwise, the "right to work" currently entails the right to better oneself via productive labor. I would tie it closely to "equal opportunity" (for Americans).

I think employers are obliged not to hire illegals. Work has so many aspects of legality to it that it becomes untenable to hire an illegal, someone for which our justice system largely does not apply (how would you handle taxes and insurance, for example). That and of course the blanket provision that it is illegal to hire them anyway.

Well, there's a simple solution: make it MUCH easier for it to become a legal resident. As Gary Johnson put it, if you make it so that the line to residency/citizenship is quicker and easier, more people will be willing to stand in line.

And, if you oppose that, I'm wondering whether your problem lies with illegal immigration, or just immigration. Not an ad hominem, but I'm curious (that is, if you don't see easier paths to residency as a fair solution to people hiring "illegals.")

It's not about reciprocation, it's just all about me,
a sycophantic, prophetic, Socratic junkie wannabe.
- The 1975, "The Sound"

And, if you oppose that, I'm wondering whether your problem lies with illegal immigration, or just immigration. Not an ad hominem, but I'm curious (that is, if you don't see easier paths to residency as a fair solution to people hiring "illegals.")

You're correct that I see a problem with immigration in general, which I address in a subsequent comment...although it's complicated, I guess. The fact is, with globalization, the labor saturation aspect of immigration doesn't matter too much, since the jobs themselves are now mobile and no longer geolocated. You still have the free-rider problem for entitlements, though (basically slicing the pie too thin, no one gets full).

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

And, if you oppose that, I'm wondering whether your problem lies with illegal immigration, or just immigration. Not an ad hominem, but I'm curious (that is, if you don't see easier paths to residency as a fair solution to people hiring "illegals.")

You're correct that I see a problem with immigration in general, which I address in a subsequent comment...although it's complicated, I guess. The fact is, with globalization, the labor saturation aspect of immigration doesn't matter too much, since the jobs themselves are now mobile and no longer geolocated. You still have the free-rider problem for entitlements, though (basically slicing the pie too thin, no one gets full).

How do you globalize local construction jobs, landscaping, and domestic care?

Crying about how much the Trump wall is going to cost is like a heroin addict complaining about how much the needles cost.

And, if you oppose that, I'm wondering whether your problem lies with illegal immigration, or just immigration. Not an ad hominem, but I'm curious (that is, if you don't see easier paths to residency as a fair solution to people hiring "illegals.")

You're correct that I see a problem with immigration in general, which I address in a subsequent comment...although it's complicated, I guess. The fact is, with globalization, the labor saturation aspect of immigration doesn't matter too much, since the jobs themselves are now mobile and no longer geolocated. You still have the free-rider problem for entitlements, though (basically slicing the pie too thin, no one gets full).

How do you globalize local construction jobs, landscaping, and domestic care?

I agree not all jobs are subject to globalization, hence "doesn't matter too much".

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 8/9/2013 10:51:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:I think if we are going to allow open globalization of our domestic jobs anyway, then we should revamp our domestic welfare programs to assume more of the characteristics of a global welfare program.

=)

I like where you're going with this.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 8/9/2013 10:51:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:I think if we are going to allow open globalization of our domestic jobs anyway, then we should revamp our domestic welfare programs to assume more of the characteristics of a global welfare program.

=)

I like where you're going with this.

Haha!

Crying about how much the Trump wall is going to cost is like a heroin addict complaining about how much the needles cost.

I think a better question is what jobs they're taking. For example, the poultry business in Alabama almost went under when they passed stricter immigration laws. The problem wasn't entirely losing money (though some of it was) but they couldn't find many people to actually work for them. The conditions were inhumane, and extremely labor intensive. I could be wrong, but it seemed like it was bad for certain businesses. Any thoughts?